Now that states are starting to realize the cash-cow that is DUI offenses, this will only get worse. With support from a nation full of reactionary busybodies, we're on our way to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation when it comes to DUIs. Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.

That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

I'm ok with this. The founding fathers couldn't foresee the reckless use of automobiles so the 4th amendment is obviously outdated and no longer needed in this day and age. I for one applaud our government for making progress in this area where it is needed badly.

They've been doing this in Tennessee for some time, including in our county. There was so much push back from the medical guys here (All of our SO Medical guys are volunteers) who could actually do the field draws, and from the EMS agencies because of the questionable constitutionality of it, that they had to hire a private firm with forensic nurses to do it.

While I'm generally supportive of any aggressive measure to go after drunk driving assholes, this is far, far too far.

FTFA: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant

The surge in no-refusal statewide began over worries of serious declines in DWI convictions in recent years. Judge David Hodges, then a judicial liaison with the Texas Center for the Judiciary, told the Legislature in early 2011 that since Texas implemented its Driver's Responsibility Law and the surcharge that it carries for DWI convicts, defendants grew more likely to fight DWI's in court, pushing judges and prosecutors to accept reduced charges instead of letting cases languish in court dockets for years. In 2005, statewide DWI arrests stood at 99,501, with convictions at 63,132. By 2009, the state saw 102,309 DWI arrests but only 44,777 convictions.

Rather than repealing the surcharge, police and prosecutors sought instead to bolster cases with more evidence. "Of those cases without a breath test that were going to trial, we were losing nearly 50 percent of them," said Herberg. "The juries were quite frankly demanding more evidence. The officer's word just wasn't good enough anymore."

In my area, you are given a breathalyzer on the road side. If you are over the limit OR if you refuse to take a breathalyzer, you are brought back to the local station. There, you are given the option of another breathalyzer or a blood test. You may refuse both, but if you do, then you are assumed guilty - and you are told this fact very clearly. Not taking the test means you are guilty.

First off you cannot smell "alcohol" on someone's breath. and any smell you do feel you get is NOT a way to tell someone's BAC. MANY things can mimic the smell of an alcoholic beverage, and this mentality is the reason so many people have died in the drunk tank from DKA. Any defense attorney who hears you say this will eat you alive on cross-examination, and make you look like a complete idiot.

Second, you have a right to refuse a breathalyzer by law. But you also have the right to surrender your license by doing so. (I'm ok with this.)

I'm NOT OK with people being forced to undergo an invasive medical procedure against their will with no legitimate probable cause other than a cop saying something completely un-based in reality.

Treygreen13: Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.

Quite frankly, I have far less of a problem with that than I do the star chamber proceedings that surround DUI arrests now.

In some states you can request the blood test. My non-lawyerly advice would be if you have been drinking, and think you're not over the limit, ask for the blood test if you can. At least if you're convicted you'll know it was probably accurate.

trippdogg:That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.

DROxINxTHExWIND:trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.

True. But in the case of DUIs, would you rather take a chemical test (which is what breathalyzers and blood draws are) with the accuracy of chemistry and science (which can be validated by an independent source of your choosing in the case of blood draws) OR some cop's judgment/word that you were drunk?

LeroyBourne:fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??/or will you have to sue?

Maybe if they accidentally gave you the AIDS, but good luck proving that too.

Step 1: Accept invitation to a partyStep 2: Go and get tested for every STD before the partyStep 3: Get negative results, go and get slaughteredStep 4: Refuse Breathalyzer, take forced bloodwork, get AIDS due to horribly derelict testing proceduresStep 5: Profit???

First off you cannot smell "alcohol" on someone's breath. and any smell you do feel you get is NOT a way to tell someone's BAC. MANY things can mimic the smell of an alcoholic beverage, and this mentality is the reason so many people have died in the drunk tank from DKA. Any defense attorney who hears you say this will eat you alive on cross-examination, and make you look like a complete idiot.

Second, you have a right to refuse a breathalyzer by law. But you also have the right to surrender your license by doing so. (I'm ok with this.)

I'm NOT OK with people being forced to undergo an invasive medical procedure against their will with no legitimate probable cause other than a cop saying something completely un-based in reality.

I'm rather certain upon refusal, before a draw, you could just say "Guilty."

If you have a person to drunk or so unwilling to take a breathalyzer or admit guilt then this is about the only way to PROVE your guilt.

If a cop walked up and said "Arm, now." I would have a huge honkin ass problem with that.

This sounds to me like a last ditch effort to prove guilt if all other means fail.

Raoul Eaton:they'll have police testimony establishing probable cause even if the test comes back negative.

I'd like to see that.

"He was drunk""No, he wasn't. the blood test proves it.""Oh... um.... well, we thought he was drunk, so...""Officer, do you routinely mistake sober people for drunk people? What, exactly, is your medical training in this regard?""Well, ...""...Or were you lying when you claimed my perfectly sober client was drunk. Which would be illegal. Do we need to pull ALL your cases for the last 10 years?"etc.

Treygreen13:Now that states are starting to realize the cash-cow that is DUI offenses, this will only get worse. With support from a nation full of reactionary busybodies, we're on our way to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation when it comes to DUIs. Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.

While that could certainly make a shiat-ton of money for someone selling interlocks (paging Gov. Rick Scott to the courtesy phone), that would appear to take a lot of money out of local courts, cities, and police departments. I can see all of those working quietly to make sure that doesn't happen.

Anastacya:LeroyBourne: fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??/or will you have to sue?

Maybe if they accidentally gave you the AIDS, but good luck proving that too.

Step 1: Accept invitation to a partyStep 2: Go and get tested for every STD before the partyStep 3: Get negative results, go and get slaughteredStep 4: Refuse Breathalyzer, take forced bloodwork, get AIDS due to horribly derelict testing proceduresStep 5: Profit???

My brother-in-law got blood poisoning from a bad blood draw. It ended up being the reason he wasn't convicted of a DUI. Basically, he had a poison oak rash from earlier that day. He told the phlebotomist that she shouldn't draw from that arm, and to please use the other arm because he had poison oak. She ignored him and drew from that arm anyways. Medical tests later showed blood poisoning, and the court agreed that it was the phlebotomist's fault. Funny part is that the phlebotomist tried to claim that she didn't believe that "poison oak" was a real thing, but then later said that she washed her hands immediately afterwards in order to not catch it.

/He got convicted for his next DUI about 4 months later.//He's a dumbass